Toss-up between principles and Faustian bargaining

An opinion article (“‘serial killer’ comment makes it clear that Kejriwal will betray Modi”), published on the site of a major television channel in India on August 27, 2022, was published by the editor of Satya Hindi, the campaign of the Aam Aadmi Party. Wrote about (AAP) leader and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal for the upcoming Gujarat Assembly elections. The author praised many aspects of Mr. Kejriwal’s politics, for example, his ability to coin slogans like ‘serial killer’, his accessible language that was jargon-free, his strategy to ridicule the prime minister’s exaggerated claims so that he would get the media. could attract attention, and position the AAP as the primary challenger to the current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Mr Kejriwal offered the Delhi model of education and health as an alternative to the failed Gujarat model. However, the author of the article ended this praise on a sharply critical comment.

an unacceptable silence

For the author of the article, Mr Kejriwal’s silence on the release of 11 people convicted for murder and rape during the recent Gujarat riots was unacceptable. These people had killed the three-year-old child of Bilkis Bano. And Ms. Bano was gang-raped. In his orgy of evil, he murdered many others. The accounts of what happened are churning. There was a fierce display of new hatred born out of other’s politics. It is fortunate that the courts sentenced the convicts to life imprisonment, but the Gujarat government, using a law that allows for remission, released them early, arguing that they had served their time. have taken. When 11 people came out of atonement, they were welcomed with garlands. A type of sweet, Seeing these photos of his release and ceremony made one wonder, in despair, how much more mistreatment our country can tolerate. What kind of Machiavellian mind would regard the basic moral issues of its crimes as irrelevant? How about just plain decency? As elections are around the corner, and constituencies are to be pacified, it seems that counting of power is what matters. This is a sign of the BJP government in Gujarat.

Despite outrage among civilized citizens, Mr. Kejriwal remained silent. This, opinion article was unacceptable to the author (mentioned earlier).

Roosevelt’s agreement

As I was adding my support for his condemnation, I remembered a scholarly study on US President Franklin D. Roosevelt by Ira Katzenelson, an eminent political scientist at Columbia University. In his magisterial work, Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time, Professor Katzenelson credits Roosevelt with creating the new state in America with his comprehensive package of ‘New Deal’ policies. It pulled America out of recession, created a new body of rights and created the legal framework for a strong capitalist state. In addition, Roosevelt was the president who led America into World War II.

In order to obtain these benefits, Roosevelt had to negotiate a particularly difficult settlement with members of Congress from the 13 southern then-slave-owning states, whose votes were required to pass the relevant legislation. For example, his support for a bill relating to the military draft helped it pass by a vote of 203 to 202; 123 out of 131 votes were from the southern block. To get his support for the ‘New Deal’, Roosevelt had to ignore his open racism. When civil rights activists tried to make lynching a federal crime, they refused to intervene. He ignored the Tennessee Valley Authority’s segregation housing policy. Roosevelt had a number of unpleasant agreements with this racist bloc that, although distasteful, felt necessary for the greater benefits of a new America. For a better tomorrow, it is necessary to compromise with evil today.

other examples

Was Mr. Kejriwal’s silence tantamount to Roosevelt’s agreement? This appears to be because his policies to replace public education and health in Delhi and Punjab and hopefully later in Gujarat, will require him to play a softer Hindutva card. Votes should not be fragmented. Since his powerful rivals take advantage of hard Hindutva, Mr Kejriwal thinks soft Hindutva, along with good governance, will give him a winning political formula.

Pro. Katznelson called Roosevelt’s agreement with Southern racists a ‘Faustian bargain’. Is Mr. Kejriwal also making such a deal when he decided not to condemn the release of 11 people convicted of serious crimes? Perhaps ousted Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi also struck a Faustian bargain when she struck a deal with Myanmar generals to come to power despite military atrocities against the Rohingya. He was condemned globally for his deal, and for his silence on the atrocities, with some even demanding the Nobel Peace Prize, which was awarded in 1991 for his retraction. Was Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s deal with the BJP a Faustian deal, which has now collapsed after joining hands with the Rashtriya Janata Dal? Has Odisha CM Naveen Patnaik struck a Faustian bargain with the BJP? Did former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi strike a Faustian bargain with the government, which resulted in his nomination to the Rajya Sabha? Is Attorney General Faustian bargaining when he deviates from his defined role of advising the government on the constitutionality of its policies and actions, and remains silent, as did William Barr who served in the Donald Trump government of the United States? Was the Attorney General of?

So, what is ‘Faustian bargaining’? Its classical definition refers to an agreement where a person trades something of supreme moral and spiritual value, a fundamental principle that defines their essential existence in exchange for power, knowledge or wealth. The idea comes from the German legend of Johann Georg Faust who sold his soul to the devil for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures. It was for a fixed period. This is a story that inspired great literature from the play by Christopher Marlowe Doctor Faustus for Goethe’s play Faust, In this deal, Faust’s soul is retrieved for eternity by Satan at the end of the contract. This is a tough deal. Get it now Shame on you forever. In modern terms, it means a temporary advantage obtained for the suspension, or suppression, of one’s conscience. The guilt of compromise, however, does not go away.

pertinent question

While the definition speaks in general terms, the question we must consider is whether it only applies to big leaders like Roosevelt. Or does it also apply to senior bureaucrats and heads of institutions? I believe we all do ‘Faustian bargains’. This raises the associated question: whether bargaining, however distasteful and unethical, can be justified by better outcomes measured in utilitarian terms. Roosevelt’s deal created the New Deal. Mr. Kejriwal can form a better government in Gujarat. Aung San Suu Kyi created a democratic government in Myanmar. Do all politicians have to make a Faustian bargain, assuming they are committed to the public interest that the bargain should serve?

In contrast to Faustian bargaining, some politicians prefer not to compromise, believing that it is better to take public positions that conform to one’s values ​​rather than adopt the utilitarian calculus of compromising with evil for a future good. Gandhiji entered into No Faustian Bargaining. Nor Nelson Mandela or Jawaharlal Nehru or Rabindranath Tagore. Babasaheb Ambedkar resigned when he felt that Nehru had undermined his position as Law Minister over the Hindu Code Bill, which he wanted to discuss. His resignation speech is an artistic statement of the principled position.

So what is the path in politics? Faustian bargaining or principled position?

Peter Ronald D’Souza is the DD Kosambi Visiting Professor at Goa University. He has recently co-edited the book ‘Companion to Indian Democracy: Resilience, Fragility, Ambivance’. Views expressed are personal